It is my understanding that the Administration has requested $19.0 billion in budget authority for those discretionary programs that are within the primary jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations (that is, the International Affairs Function, or Function 150, less multilateral development banks, the Export-Import Bank, and certain other programs under the jurisdiction of other Committees). I also understand that this amount includes an increase of $59 million for Sustainable Development Programs. I must oppose that request because of my concerns about how that money will be spent. I do so with regret, because there are many development assistance programs I do support, such as child survival and disease programs and microenterprise initiatives. However, I am extremely concerned that the proposed increase will include funding for population control activities at levels above Fiscal Year 1999 levels. I am aware of at least $40 million in requested increases for population activities in FY 2000: in addition to a $15 million increase for USAID-managed population program funding, the Administration has proposed a $25 million U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). There may also be increases for population control activities funded out of other accounts, of which I am not presently aware. I would like to make clear that I would not object to the Administration's FY 2000 request for population assistance funding if population assistance funds were subject to the following two safeguards: (1) Population assistance funds may be made available for a foreign organization only (2) Population assistance funds may be made available for a foreign organization only after it certifies that it will not, during the period for which the funds are made available, violate the abortion laws of any foreign country or engage in any activity to alter the abortion laws or policies of any foreign country. Without those safeguards, however, any increase in population funding would be wholly inappropriate. For this reason, I do not believe that the Administration should receive any increase in its "Sustainable Development Programs" budget authority for next year unless the Congress receives assurances that the Administration will not increase funding of population activities over last year's levels. Thank you for your willingness to consider my views on this matter. Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Chin Smith CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH Chairman, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights SAM GEJDENSON, CONNECTICUT TOM LANTOS, CALIFORNIA STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, NEW JERSEY EARL POMEROY, NORTH DAKOTA WILLIAMD DELAMUNT, MASSACHUSETTS BARBARA LEE CALFORMA JOSEPH CROWLEY, NEW YORK KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED CHEF OF STAFF The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman Chairman Committee on International Relations U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Ben, I have reviewed the draft letter that you propose to send to the Budget Committee regarding your views and estimates on the 150 international affairs budget account. I appreciate that your recommendation for this account for Fiscal Year 2000 is an increase over the amount appropriated thus far for Fiscal Year 1999 (excluding one-time supplementals). I view this increase as an important step in the right direction. Your recommendation, however, does represent a cut of some $140 million from the President's request for Fiscal Year 2000. I want to be clear that, on behalf of the Committee's minority, I support the President's full request level of $21.3 billion for the 150 international affairs budget function. As well, I support the President's request for advance and/or supplemental multi-year appropriations of $3 billion for embassy security, $1.9 billion to implement the Wye agreement, and $1 billion to assist with reconstruction for hurricane damage in Central America and the Caribbean. Many of us view the request levels as floors, not ceilings, given the urgent needs we face overseas. Finally, we would like to reiterate our strong support for action on the $1 billion the United Consistent with traditional practice when the Committee orders matters reported, I would ask that you consider this letter as additional views, and submit it with your letter to the Budget Committee. With best regards, CC: The Honorable John R. Kasich 55-805 99-6 Sincerely-yours, San Gejdenson Ranking Democratic Member Pursuant to section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and House Rule X, clause 4(f), attached please find the Committee on the Judiciary's views and estimates on the 2000 fiscal year budget. Sincerely, Harry & Hyde HENRY J. HYDE Attachment THE AUTHORIZATION FOR PROGRAMS WITHIN THE The Committee on the Judiciary and its subcommittees have begun their review of government programs within the Committee's jurisdiction. Based on the information contained in the Administration's budget proposal, the Committee would like to comment specifically on the programs within its jurisdiction. ANTITRUST DIVISION - DOJ The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice administers and enforces the Federal antitrust laws and related statutes. Its activities include the investigation of suspected violations of the antitrust laws, the conduct of civil and criminal proceedings in the Federal courts, and the maintenance of free competition in the market. Due to the increasing size, scope, and complexity of the national and international economy, the Division has faced substantial resource shortages and only recently achieved the staff and relative budget it had during the Nixon Administration. As a result of these additional resources, the Division has been able to assist businesses in complying with the antitrust laws by issuing guidelines for various types of economic activities, including health care, horizontal mergers, intellectual property licensing, and international operations. The Division reviews approximately 400 proposed mergers each month, the majority of which come to its attention through premerger notifications under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. This number has increased rapidly in recent years. Many of the mergers that the Division reviews involve complex business agreements and affect multiple segments of the relevant markets. Increasingly, proposed mergers affect global markets or involve multinational companies. These merger reviews must be completed within tight statutory deadlines, and they require highly trained, experienced staff. The Division has also stepped up its criminal and civil enforcement activities. The Division has recently devoted substantial resources to the prosecution of international cartels that victimize American businesses and consumers. In the last two years alone, the Division has succeeded in imposing approximately a half billion dollars in criminal fines, most of which have come from these international cartels. These criminal fines alone far exceed the Division's budget. The Division has also sought to provide prospective guidance, in the form of "business review letters," to businesses that plan mergers, joint ventures, and other potentially anticompetitive activities. On the request of the businesses themselves, the Division reviews proposed actions and advises the businesses in advance how current antitrust enforcement policies apply to the proposed transaction. This pre-transaction guidance allows businesses to move forward safely with their plans or to restructure them to avoid antitrust problems. |